Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 1, 2018.

GreeNoodle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising of a certain company's noodles. Section and redirect were created by a blocked user. I removed the section as it was unsourced and only sourceable to the company website or Huffington Post contributor section [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTADVERT --Lenticel (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - Neither of these seem appropriate. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G11 as a pure advertising campaign, as described by the nominator. ToThAc (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I was considering nominating these a month or so for the same reason as described by the nom. Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: The creator of these redirects is currently not blocked, though they currently are subject to a ban of creating redirects, and has to use WP:AFC/R for all redirect creations. Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Deb (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Baodai Thongbao[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was created with a bunch of variants by a blocked user. Most of the others are valid like "Bao Dai Thong Bao" and "Bao Dai thong bao" but I don't see where combining Baodai and Thongbao like this has been shown to be useful.There are other redirects created by the same editor with thong bao combined. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC) updated 13:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The entire premise for this redirect discussion is flawed, which is primarily based on the fact Donald Trung is blocked, which he is not. He is currently editing productively. I have given him permission to participate in this discussion.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 11:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The New Pages Feed still marked him as blocked, but I'll go ahead and strike that part out. The point is whether the phrases for the people and whether thong bao are plausibly combined for the language, especailly ones with diacritics. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Baodai is basically one word and Thongbao is another. This is a valid spelling variation. -Zanhe (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (first of all I am allowed to comment here), yes this is a rare spelling variation but it comes from the Azhou huobi shi, a Chinese numismatic catalogue I own that uses this idiosyncratic spelling and others like "Minhmang Thongbao", "Thaibinh Hungbao", "Quangtrung Thongbao", "Tuduc Baosao" Etc. Maybe because it's a Chinese book and they use spellings like "Kaiyuan Tongbao", "Xuantong Tongbao", Etc. I would upload a picture of my copy but the book is from the 1990's so it's still copyrighted. As it's not an English language book I can understand that it might not be considered a valid alternative spelling but I also created a redirect for the Chinese characters like 保大通寶. And yes, this variant is unorthodox for Vietnamese but it comes from a Chinese book. --Donald Trung (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum is also used in English such as on this English language website I was coincidentally checking for drafting a future article. Quote: "There are known ("Yuenan lishi huobi") two main series of the Tu Duc's coinage - thongbao and baosao." --Donald Trung (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Deep trance[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Trance. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "deep" is not present in the target article. Also, this oversee could refer to a level in which someone is in a Trance, a separate subject/article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Argentinian psychedelic trance musicians[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not such list mentioned at target. (Note: List of Argentinian psychedelic trance musicians is a {{R with history}}.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fatima Badjie[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Withdrawn per User:AngusWOOF (non-admin closure) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect name, however one source on the subject's page uses it. Other sources I found online use the (assumedly) correct name ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Fatim and Fatima are easily mixed as they are common spellings, add {{R from misspelling}} [2] [3] Here's one with Fatimah [4] A forum post of an old news article also uses this Fatima spelling [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The dress (viral phenomenom)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow this obvious typo does not qualify for speedy deletion. MZMcBride (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tavix declined a speedy deletion under CSD G6, though I fail to see how "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace." doesn't apply here. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per {{R from move}} and {{R from misspelling}}. -- Tavix (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Tavix. I'm trying to better understand your view here. Is your view that any page move redirect can't be deleted?
      • (cur | prev) 18:52, 20 September 2015‎ EdJohnston (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (23,004 bytes) (0)‎ . . (EdJohnston moved page The dress (viral phenomenom) to The dress (viral phenomenon): Requested at WP:RM as uncontroversial (permalink))
      • (cur | prev) 11:10, 20 September 2015‎ ToonLucas22 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (23,004 bytes) (0)‎ . . (ToonLucas22 moved page The dress (meme) to The dress (viral phenomenom): rv pov title)
    • It looks like this redirect was only "active" for about 7 hours.
    • Or is your view that since we did not this redirect in 2015 or 2016, that we should now keep it indefinitely since it's been a few years? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a redirect that helps people to find the right article in spite of a typing or spelling error.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Toddy1. Do you think users will enter "The dress (viral phenomenom)" into the search bar? I think "The dress" would be a lot more common. So a user would need to be entering the parenthetical and misspelling it, which nobody has done for any incoming links yet, as far as I know. Looking at the page history, it seems pretty clear that this was just a silly typo. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MZMcBride: You are mistaken. Page view statistics show that between October 2015 and February 2018 an average of two people a month used the redirect.[6] This is a lot lower than the correctly spelled version, which in 2018 averaged about 1,770 views per month.[7]-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is most likely occurring because when those two or so people a month search for the "the dress", the nominated redirect shows up on the search bar, though they did not type the disambiguator at all. Then, the reader clicks on the redirect with the misspelled disambiguator (this one), and voila, pageview. In other words, if this redirect is deleted, then most likely, the pageviews will disappear. Steel1943 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should not be promoting misspellings in disambiguators; {{R from misspelling}} should only be used to represent misspellings that are part of the main title, not the disambiguator. Also, the version with the properly spelled disambiguator, The dress (viral phenomenon), exists. Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as The Dress (viral phenomenon) already exists to attract type-in searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely to be of any use per above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the target is the first search result. wumbolo ^^^ 08:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a valid {{R from move}} as it only lived at this title for approximately seven hours, and not a plausible misspelling as the misspelling is confimed to the disanbiguator. Plus there's evidence the redirect is WP:RFD#D1 harmful as it's obstructing the operation of the search box, albeit getting readers to the same result anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Harmful redirect. feminist (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hebe (album)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 10#Hebe (album)

Tatsuki[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguation per Xezbeth. Closed as it's no longer a redirect. (non-admin closure) John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 12:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuki could also refer to former animator of Kemono Friends or others.[8] John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 13:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made an article since there are more than enough name-holders to justify one. Not 100% convinced about it being unisex. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set index as per Xezbeth's edit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab per Xezbeth's edit. I'm okay with Set index as well --Lenticel (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the deletion notice from the page as it is not a redirect any more anyway - Andre Engels (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Magadize[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Keeping since nobody seemed to advocate delete, but provided sources for use ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The connection is unclear due to the term not being described at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Listlessly[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix redirect from a dubious adverb form to a word that doesn't really mean the same thing. Redirect was previous speedied as X1, and recently restored, thus the RfD. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Currently, "Listless" also directs to the medical page for fatigue. That doesn't seem appropriate either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep to match Listless and Listlessness or retarget/delete all three. I don't see any reason to treat the adverb differently from the noun and the adjective. For what it's worth, the Fatigue (medical) article gives "Listlessness" as a synonym. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it makes perfect sense to delete listlessly while keeping the others (although I question the others). These adverb forms are, frankly, idiotic, and they are a large part of why Neelix redirects became a speedy deletion criteria. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom as they don't really mean the same thing. Listless is simply lacking energy, etc., whereas fatigue is more of a loss of energy. -- Tavix (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If "listlessness" is a synonym for fatigue, it should redirect there if it's not a potential disambiguation page or freestanding article. And the other two are basically just alternate forms of the same word; they ought to be retained as, and converted into, redirects to fatigue (medical). Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all three as they are not synonyms for the target, per Tavix. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm mainly relisting since Listless and Listlessness weren't tagged. They are now, so can be appropriately discussed together.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Manta Unmanned Underwater Vehicle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Feel free to recreate if this receives non-trivial coverage. -- Tavix (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this useful or too vague? There is an underwater vehicle in development called "BOSS Manta Ray" but if anyone writes an article about it they may not think to retarget this redirect there. Note this redirects to Autonomous underwater vehicle not Unmanned underwater vehicle. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article linked to mentions Manta once, and then only in passing. So anyone using the redirect will be disappointed because it leads to a largely irrelevant target. There have been several unmanned underwater vehicle projects called "Manta" or similar. A redirect to Unmanned underwater vehicle does not really help - it does not mention any projects called "Manta".-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

US:C/CI[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete, WP:CSD#R2. Jac16888 Talk 15:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#D6: New cross-namespace redirect from mainspace to userspace — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US → User . - Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 05:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is your point? US is not an alias for User. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per complaint by JJMC89. Might as well qualify for section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Eyesnore 11:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ԇлаһар[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per WP:G7. -- Tavix (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED No affinity to Kazakh. Created by blocked editor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:MADEUP Cyrillic alphabet soup. Even leaving aside WP:FORRED, there's no real language which uses both Ԇ and һ. Also it's not remotely plausible as a transcription of "Salazar", because the pronunciation of these letters (something like "Dzhlahar"). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the record, I am not blocked; that was only for a day. These redirects were created before I fully understood the purpose of redirects. At the time I had thouğt that, because it is a fusion of Sala & Zahar, I shortened it to Szlar and Szlahar throuğ Nonconcatenative morphology and then transliterated it. It is an ingenuine redirect with little-to-no implications, as such, it should be deleted. User:Учхљёная (talk,philosophy,edits). 14:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete/ Delete per above and since creator is okay with deletion as well --Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_1&oldid=1036305949"